Explorer

A component of the issuer (“component”) entered into contracts with customers in which revenue was recognized over time based on the extent of progress towards completion of the performance obligation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used certain data to substantively test accounts receivable but did not test or (as discussed above) test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

A component of the issuer (“component”) entered into contracts with customers in which revenue was recognized over time based on the extent of progress towards completion of the performance obligation. The following deficiency was identified: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

A component of the issuer (“component”) entered into contracts with customers in which revenue was recognized over time based on the extent of progress towards completion of the performance obligation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the component's review of contracts including the review of new and modified contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. For one control the firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the new and modified contract data used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

A component of the issuer (“component”) entered into contracts with customers in which revenue was recognized over time based on the extent of progress towards completion of the performance obligation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the component's review of contracts including the review of new and modified contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not (1) evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of revenue recognition and (2) test an aspect of the control over the accuracy of the report used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.42 and .44))

A component of the issuer (“component”) entered into contracts with customers in which revenue was recognized over time based on the extent of progress towards completion of the performance obligation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the component's review of contracts including the review of new and modified contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. For the other control the firm did not test or test any controls over the completeness of the contract listing from which it made its selections to test the control. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and the related accounts receivable investment securities and cash. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by certain of these IT systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

With respect to three of the issuer's business units the following deficiency was identified: The firm's testing of certain automated controls over revenue and accounts receivable was not sufficient because the firm did not test the configuration or programming of these controls or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.46)

For two of these business units the firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's reviews of adjustments to the contract prices that were used to recognize revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For the first business unit when evaluating the design of the control the firm did not evaluate (1) the criteria the control owners used to identify items for follow-up and (2) the number of items the control owner reviewed to assess whether it was sufficient to address the risk of material misstatement. (AS 2201.42)

For two of these business units the firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's reviews of adjustments to the contract prices that were used to recognize revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For the second business unit the firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the report the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and the related accounts receivable investment securities and cash. With respect to change management: · For certain IT systems the firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's review of changes to these IT systems. For certain of these IT systems the firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. Further the firm did not determine whether the control owners possessed the necessary competence to perform these controls. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For two of these business units the firm selected for testing controls over contract pricing but did not perform any substantive procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's approach for substantively testing revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's tests of details of certain data underlying the analysis. The sample sizes the firm used in certain of these tests of details were smaller than the ones the firm determined necessary for these procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and the related accounts receivable investment securities and cash. With respect to change management: · For another IT system the firm selected for testing controls over change management but did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and the related accounts receivable investment securities and cash. With respect to user access: · The issuer used tools to manage user access to certain IT systems. The firm selected for testing controls over user access for these IT systems but did not test whether user access to certain of these IT systems was appropriately granted based on the permissions defined in these tools. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and the related accounts receivable. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by certain of these IT systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and the related accounts receivable. · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of new user access and changes made to its production environment for these IT systems. The number of items the firm selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence given the frequency with which the control operated. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and the related accounts receivable. · The firm selected for testing a control over the periodic review of user access for each of these IT systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information included in manually prepared spreadsheets that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's testing of certain automated controls over this revenue and accounts receivable was not sufficient because the firm did not test the configuration or programming of these controls or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.46)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and the related accounts receivable investment securities and cash. With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's review of administrative access to certain tools the issuer used to manage access to certain IT systems. The firm did not perform procedures to assess the control owners' (1) determination of whether administrative access to these tools was appropriate and (2) evaluation of certain users' access. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing certain automated controls that the issuer used to process and record revenue transactions. The firm did not sufficiently test these controls because the firm did not test whether these controls were designed to address and/or operated as designed for each relevant processing alternative. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing certain automated controls that the issuer used to process and record transactions related to revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable. The firm did not sufficiently test these controls because the firm did not test the programming of these controls or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing certain other controls that the issuer used to process and record revenue transactions. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain automated controls that the issuer used to process and record transactions related to revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable. For certain of these controls the firm did not test whether these controls operated as designed for each relevant processing alternative. (AS 2201.44)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue and the related accounts receivable as follows: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data or reports the firm used (1) to make its selections to test certain controls or (2) in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue and the related accounts receivable as follows: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing two automated controls over certain revenue accounts receivable and inventory. The firm's testing of these automated controls was not sufficient because the firm did not test the programming of these controls or perform other procedures to test these controls that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies discussed above the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable as follows: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the completeness of certain reports the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies discussed above the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable as follows: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer used an IT system to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and accounts receivable. The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's reviews of changes made to this IT system through administrative user access. When testing the design and operating effectiveness of these controls the firm did not evaluate (1) certain criteria that the control owners used to determine which types of changes would be subject to the issuer's reviews and (2) whether the control owners' review of only certain types of system changes and permissions was sufficient to address the risk that unauthorized changes were made. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data or reports generated or maintained by this IT system. As a result of the above deficiency in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The sample sizes that the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to (1) the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above and/or (2) the firm not taking into account that the controls it relied upon were not designed and operating effectively during the entire period of reliance. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing a control at one of the issuer's locations that consisted of the issuer's review of source documentation prior to processing customer invoices and credit memos. The firm did not test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples for testing this control. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control at one of the issuer's locations that consisted of the issuer's review of source documentation prior to processing customer invoices and credit memos. The number of credit memos that the firm selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate evidence given the frequency with which the control operated. (AS 2201.46)

To test the existence of accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable as of either an interim date or year-end. To extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end the firm tested the respective customer's year-end account balances by agreeing subsequent cash collections from those customers to the issuer's bank statements. The following deficiency was identified: · For positive confirmation requests for which the firm did not receive a response the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the receivables were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

To test the existence of accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable as of either an interim date or year-end. To extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end the firm tested the respective customer's year-end account balances by agreeing subsequent cash collections from those customers to the issuer's bank statements. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end because it did not perform any procedures to (1) evaluate whether the subsequent cash collections tested related to the customers' year-end account balances and (2) test any uncollected portion of the customers' year-end account balances. (AS 2301.45)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested an IT-dependent manual control that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of this IT-dependent control was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. With respect to user access the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a user access control over this IT system that consisted of management's review and approval of user access requests. The firm did not perform procedures to test an aspect of this control related to the assignment of user access rights. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. With respect to user access the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a user access control over this IT system that consisted of management's review and approval of user access requests. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the completeness of the population of user access requests from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. With respect to user access the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing another user access control over this IT system that consisted of the issuer's periodic monitoring of user access rights for appropriateness. The firm did not perform any procedures to (1) evaluate whether it was appropriate for the control to exclude certain users from monitoring and (2) test an aspect of this control that addressed whether the role and related functions assigned to each user were appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the valuation of accounts receivable. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of accounts receivable because it used certain information obtained from external sources in its substantive testing of receivables and did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of this information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain accounts receivable outstanding longer than a year as it limited its procedures to tracing the balances to its prior year audit work papers. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain accounts receivable outstanding less than one year as it limited its procedures to tracing transactions to statements produced by the party owing the funds which were provided by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

To test accounts receivable and certain other revenue the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the nature of exceptions in one returned confirmation. (AS 2310.33)

For certain accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers and received no responses. The firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivable balances as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

For certain accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers and received no responses. The firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivable balances as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of the reserve for accounts receivable. (AS 2501.07)